NagoyaHammer - A discussion (or not...)

[Primarch]

Today I went to Tsu for the Mie Plamo Summit and a great day it was. During the day I spent a lot of time talking to Kondo san from the Nagoya based group, one of the members of the Mie Warmachine group and M_i_J who some of you may know from local painting contests.

There were a few points we talked about that I'd like to share with people here and to get your input on.

First off, there isn't an awful lot of discussion going on here on NagoyaHammer, or indeed anywhere that I can find. M_i_J confirmed that the local Facebook page isn't very active and tends to be the same people posting on both Facebook and NagoyaHammer. A while ago I was talking to a couple of our group and I mentioned something that I had posted here, both people said that they had seen it, but nobody had bothered commenting on it. I get that people are pretty busy, but the purpose of this site is to enable us to connect with each other and share our thoughts, ideas and whatnot. It can be pretty disheartening to post something up and then get no acknowledgement of any kind. Many folks are at an age where they have young kids and can't get out to game much. This site is intended to be your connection to the hobby and your friends. Your kids will grow up and need less attention eventually and I'd like NagoyaHammer to still be around when that happens.
That's mainly all me at this stage, but participation online outside of the Joshin/Not-Joshin threads is something I am concerned about.

The next point that came up that I would like to chat about is the group in Mie playing Warmachine. There are a few fairly active players from the sound of things and it appears like they are keen to expand in Mie and to travel to Nagoya if they think they can get some games in. Now Warmahordes is not my thing for a couple of reasons, but if you are a fan, I'd suggest getting in touch with Dungeon Lord or letting me know and I can pass on a message for you.

The final two points are connected so I will try and introduce both together. I had a bit of time to talk to Kondo-san without being distracted by a game or having to rush off and do something else, which allowed for a bit more than the usual greeting and お元気ですか？
I also got some time in with M_i_J to talk about the future of our hobby and our little community. How do these two conversations intertwine I hear you ask? Well, Kondo-san was, I wouldn't say complaining, but certainly was raising the point that it is getting more and more difficult to play games. Yes, we all play games every month at Joshin, but there is no consistency. The games we play this month have no bearing on what we will play next month. We all have our favourites, be it a classic game from the 80s, a revision of something we have been playing for years or just the latest release from an obscure publisher. The point was made that it is tough to get in a game with minis you have already heavily invested in and it is highly unlikely that investing in something new would actually be any different because by the time the minis are ready everyone has already moved on to a new system (or two). Campaigns are almost impossible and everyone spends half their time looking up rules because they never really have a chance to familiarize themselves with them. I am fully aware that I am one of the worst people for this behaviour. I recently saw a discussion elsewhere describing how what used to be hobby-butterfly syndrome of flitting from one project to the next has now become hobby-pinball syndrome.
The discussion with M_i_J covered a lot of stuff, but primarily what we want from this hobby and what we want it to be down the line. Currently it is pretty self-serving. Everyone plays the games they want, when they want, with no real consistency (see Kondo-san's point above). This makes it pretty tough to introduce new players and to encourage people to invest their time, money and effort into anything. Aside from more ex-pats moving to the area we don't see much growth as a whole. Our hobby is fairly niche anyway, but we should do more to encourage outsiders to at least take a look. During my time at todays Plastic Model Summit, there were easily two dozen people who stopped to see what we were up to or to admire the big 40K display set up by Satoru-san and Kondo-san. Looking at the turnout for the Summit, if we could get 1% to convert to gaming we would greatly increase our own opportunities and possibilities.

So to sum things up, as a group things have fragmented a lot from the days when you could buy a 40K army and guarantee getting a game in at any event. As a group we seem to be stagnating and making the hobby more difficult to get into for anyone with a passing interest. I feel at this stage that I should make it clear that I have had several beers and am in a fairly melancholy/introspective mood, but if we hope to see any positive changes in what we do as a community and to have a future as a niche hobby in this country, it is up to us to ensure that it happens.


... So, if you have read this far, please leave a comment. What do you think, is there a solution? Am I overreacting? Where do you see this hobby in 10 years?

[me_in_japan]

If I may chip in, having imbibed a few at the same establishment as our esteemed leader, here...

I concur with Prim on all points, but I think it's less of a problem than just something we kinda need to evaluate. What do we want from Naghammer, as a group? Are we interested in growing it, or are we content to keep numbers as they are and just continue with the hobby pinball? The latter is a valid option, but I think it should be a choice deliberately taken, and not just something we (as a group) float into (should we choose to take it at all, that is).

Speaking personally, I'm feeling pretty jazzed about New40k, and hope to play that at the next game event I attend. I also enjoy Dropfleet, Frostgrave, etc etc, but I realise I can't play everything I want to. Heck, the last time I played Warmachine was a year ago. I still like it, I still want to get my Cryx on the table, but other stuff has taken precedence. I'm sure you all know the feeling. Too many games, not enough time. So for now, my focus is on 40k, and I'd like to maintain that for the next few months at least. This doesnt mean I'll only play 40k, but that I want to play 40k plus something else on a given game day.

So, what do people think we can/should do about this? I haven't properly thought this through, but how about saying one option could be to set a given month/2 month/6 month/whatevs period as "40k time" or "Frostgrave time" or whatever, and try to ensure that at least one of the games you play on a game day is the named game. I realise this feels quite constrictive, but Kondo san defo has a point when he says that it's very hard for new players to get into wargaming when the flavour of the month changes, well, every month. To really encourage a new player to join, there needs to be at least a few months of the same game being played consistently. This enables: Day 1: see game, think "hmmn, interesting", Day 2: play trial game, get encouraged to buy a squad/gang/etc. Day 3: play with your own stuff. Even that short plan neccessitates 3 months of commitment, (by the group), which is about 2 more than folks (and I'm as guilty as anyone) seem inclined to give.

So, aye. That's my rambly two yen. What about you folks? It's a thorny problem, and no mistake. A bit of group debate would be appreciated

[The Other Dave]

Those are all fair points, and I, too, have kind of felt it / contributed to it over the past couple years - although, like MiJ, I think "us being interested in lots of different games" is less a problem per se than a mostly-positive-reality-with-some-real-downsides we should be thinking about how to manage.

I'd almost want to suggest that we take a cue from the Tsu game days and place a fairly strict limit on Joshin to a couple few "big games" (eyeballing it, I'd guess BA, possibly 40K moving forward with the new edition, and in our group at any rate Malifaux, which covers the holy trinity of historical, sci-fi and fantasy - and even 3 games might be too many) and ask people to arrange any other games at other times and places - having done it, it's not generally actually too difficult, and I think the slight onerousness of playing "side games" (especially skirmishy side games that don't need s'much table space) at someone's house or a local community center or what have you would probably be offset by having a basically coherent and stable set of games played at the monthly get-togethers. The idea, I think, should be to try and ensure that there would always be a "big game" available at one of the monthly game days.

As for discussion, I dunno - in the end, the forum only has about a dozen consistently active members, and I think we have about as much discussion as a forum can expect from a dozen active members, y'know? It's just the nature of the beast. Same for the FB group - there's only like 30 people in it, and about 10 to 15% (and yes, that means 3 or 4 people) of those are really active, which I think is about a typical poster-to-lurker ratio. It'd be nice to have more discussion, but overall I'm pretty satisfied with how our community, er, communicates.

[jus]

In my case, I have the sum total of zero kids, and all the time in the world but as much as I'd love fill the forum with posts regarding my thoughts on the impact of primaris marines on the canon of 40k or talking about how cool the new models are, I don't think anyone else shares the same passion/mania for 40k that I do anymore (there has been a resurgence of interest of late, yes, but still a little lukewarm). I have in the past made threads for fluff chat in the past, you can't say I didn't try! Now, you obviously can't force someone to be enthusiatic about something. They either like it or they don't. I certainly feel that sense of disunity prim mentions. Different people, different values e.t.c

I don't think there is one solution that will fix the fragmented community problem, with out potentially stepping on someone's toes. If we say "lets all do Bolt Action!" for the sake of unity, then 40k purests like me will have no place at Nagham, and I would be very sad. LIkewise the "let's all do 40k!" approach will alienate people, obviously who don't play 40k. Not to mention being a bit unfair to all the people who have invested so much in stuff like historicals.

Maybe there needs to be more of a compromise with people who say "I hate historicals/40k! not spending money on it, and I don't want anything to do with it!" not necessarily starting a whole new game system, but being open minded/positive and sharing in or at least acknowlegding someone's passion. So when I see a post about bolt action, I shouldn't say to myself " oh... it's that game system that has poisoned the minds of my once loyal-to-GW comrades. Curse it!"
I should post something like " hmm history can be very interesting, I wonder what those soldiers were thinking. plus those hats are nice."

likewise when someone posts about 40k you shouldn't say to yourself " GW. Hate em'. Nope, sorry don't care...." but rather post something to the effect of " hmm 40k lore really is epic, I wonder what impact the new primaris marines will have on the canon" e.t.c

[Mike the Pike]

Wow! You guys are fun when you're drinking.

I think ToD's idea of sticking to a big three at our monthly meetings might be a good idea and indulging in the 'lesser' games on our own time or at special events.
In addition, how about having (very casual) leagues so that we actually mix it up a bit. For example, all the 40k players play each other in a 'normal' games over the course of a year, whenever they can. Whoever wins the most league games is the winner. The main purpose though is to get people playing different opponents etc.
what say you savages?

[me_in_japan]

trying to play different opponent each time is a good idea, and since my current interests lie towards 40k, I'm fine with limitations in that direction. Obvs not everyone may feel the same.

Most of us manage a couple of games per day, sometimes even three. I think as long as we each try to get in one of the "main"* games each time there should still be plenty of time to get in our pet projects.

*Do folk generally agree that the most played (or potentially most played, in one significant case) games are Bolt Action, 40k and Malifaux? I think this does seem to represent the main genres, but I can't speak for how often these games are played. 40k is kind of an odd case in that it's fallen on hard times recently, but since 8th dropped there certainly seems to have been a genuine, significant upswing in interest in the game. I think it's reasonable to count it as a major game, based on projected games played. BA is something I'm completely out of the loop on, so I'll stay out of any opinion giving, other than to say it certainly seems to be the most-played historical game at the moment. Malifaux does have a few players (me, Prim, ToD, UD, Kbear), so probably qualifies as comparatively major. The only other contender would be Frostgrave (me, Kbear, Ystreak, Spev, Lovejoy, plus some of the Japanese players). It may be worth opening a thread to discuss what, exactly, do we view as "the main games" in our group. Overall, though, I think ToD/Pikey's idea of sticking to 3 of them, plus extra when time permits, seems sound.

[The Other Dave]

trying to play different opponent each time is a good idea, and since my current interests lie towards 40k, I'm fine with limitations in that direction. Obvs not everyone may feel the same.

Most of us manage a couple of games per day, sometimes even three. I think as long as we each try to get in one of the "main"* games each time there should still be plenty of time to get in our pet projects.

This is just me musing, but I sort of think that the issue with that might be that, with so few of us, it could still easily lead to things seeming fragmented - as it is, I my gut feeling is that most of the time when people play something minor, they've also got a game of BA or whatever lined up. I dunno, though - I'd be willing to give any number of ways of doing it a shot.

*Do folk generally agree that the most played (or potentially most played, in one significant case) games are Bolt Action, 40k and Malifaux? I think this does seem to represent the main genres, but I can't speak for how often these games are played. 40k is kind of an odd case in that it's fallen on hard times recently, but since 8th dropped there certainly seems to have been a genuine, significant upswing in interest in the game. I think it's reasonable to count it as a major game, based on projected games played. BA is something I'm completely out of the loop on, so I'll stay out of any opinion giving, other than to say it certainly seems to be the most-played historical game at the moment. Malifaux does have a few players (me, Prim, ToD, UD, Kbear), so probably qualifies as comparatively major. The only other contender would be Frostgrave (me, Kbear, Ystreak, Spev, Lovejoy, plus some of the Japanese players). It may be worth opening a thread to discuss what, exactly, do we view as "the main games" in our group. Overall, though, I think ToD/Pikey's idea of sticking to 3 of them, plus extra when time permits, seems sound.

Yeah, I was really just eyeballing that, and agree that Frostgrave is definitely in the running - the Japanese guys do play it pretty much every month, and the fact that I myself have a Malifaux gang probably weighted my thinking that way, heh. My thoughts on including 40K, in addition to the popularity upswing, is that having it on tap would make it easier for people new to the group to jump in, as it is still the single most popular game out there - not to mention that getting people playing it will almost certainly help out the GW event as well. A poll, both here and at games day, would probably be appropriate, as would leaving open the possibility of changing up the "allowed games" yearly or biyearly.

[Primarch]

Good points all round guys. I think it would probably be worthwhile for someone slightly more fluent in Japanese than I to spend some time talking with the Japanese gamers and asking them what they want and what we can do as a group to pull together a bit more. Beyond Komura-san and the odd BA player, there isn't that much interaction between us and our hosts. They have been organizing the Joshin/Not-Joshin events for years and we still don't play many games together. The online segregation probably doesn't help with matters much.

I'm not sure if dictating which games can be played and then playing other games at a secondary event/someone's house is the way to go. Not everyone can make it to every monthly event let alone having two days to game in a month. Anyone who wanted to play GorkaMorka/ASC/Dropzone Commander etc. would be left out. It's easy enough to relegate some games to specialized events (Black Powder or Epic) as they require a certain set-up or for one person to provide everything, but a lot of people probably feel more passionate about a minor game than they do about all the bigger games combined.
And if we did decide to limit things, what would be the cut-off point. 4 players? 6? 10? Malifaux is certainly well supported by the Joshin regulars, but all of us play 40K and/or BA as well. Plus Malifaux is fairly difficult to play even with a good grasp of English. There are currently 7 of us preparing forces for Saga, largely the same group as play Bolt Action and Malifaux at Joshin/Not-Joshin. Are 7 players enough?
We could always try doing 1 big game, 1 minor game per event, but that is a lot of stuff to carry without a car. I sometimes find it hard to manage all the things for one game, let alone a whole extra terrain set and a second range of figures.
Leagues sound good, but having tried to get everyone playing games together in the past, it can be like trying to nail water to the wall. There will probably be a few people who do stick to it, but they'd likely be the same people who would keep playing the same game anyway.
And of course, we also have a small demographic who have are disinclined to even look at certain games. (A demographic I am very much a part of).

...hmm, that was all fairly negative.

So, looking at all of this, I think there is a need to address a few issues which are all interconnected and maybe mutually exclusive.

1. - We should do more to arrange games with our hosts.
2. - There is perhaps a need to standardize the games we play.
3. - Not everyone plays the same games and we all have games we want to play more than others.
4. - The whole point of this hobby is to have fun. Draconian rules prohibiting certain types of fun are a terrible idea.
5. - Our game time and other resources (money, storage space, time for assembling/painting and interest) are all limited to some degree.

So, for the time being I am going to have a little ponder. If anyone has any ideas, please feel to post them up.

[The Other Dave]

So, looking at all of this, I think there is a need to address a few issues which are all interconnected and maybe mutually exclusive.

1. - We should do more to arrange games with our hosts.
2. - There is perhaps a need to standardize the games we play.
3. - Not everyone plays the same games and we all have games we want to play more than others.
4. - The whole point of this hobby is to have fun. Draconian rules prohibiting certain types of fun are a terrible idea.
5. - Our game time and other resources (money, storage space, time for assembling/painting and interest) are all limited to some degree.

So, for the time being I am going to have a little ponder. If anyone has any ideas, please feel to post them up.

I'd take issue with the phrasing for point 4, but basically I'd agree with this in broad strokes. We really need to do a better job of reaching out to the Japanese players (and this seems to be happening in small ways with BA and Malifaux, at least). 2, 3, 4 and 5 are where things get tricky. Even a soft suggestion like "try and schedule one of the big 3 games each month" could potentially be seen as "draconian," but on the other hand letting things go on as they are is pretty clearly making it difficult for potential players on the (relative for such a small group) fringes to get into the group to get in, or for people to know whether a game people are taking up is a "flavor of the month" deal or something that'll stick around. It's a tricky balance, but I think it's worth giving serious thought to, especially if people think our little community is in a dangerous place right now.

Here's something that might potentially be seen as an elitist and hard-line stance, but if you know me, I think you'll understand that that isn't the place I'm coming from: Everyone who knows me knows about, and has given me a lot of very fair good-natured ribbing about , the "I hate 28mm" stance that I vocally held for a long time, but have basically ditched this year. The reason I ditched it, which I think I've talked about a bit here and there but is worthwhile to state clearly for the purposes of this discussion, was that I decided this year to make a conscious effort to try harder to play some games that other people were enjoying, to get past my own hard-headedness and give them a shot. Getting back into Malifaux was the first step of this, and getting back into 40K has been the second. And I have to say, I'm very glad that I pushed myself out of my comfort zone, both for hobby reasons (remembering how fun painting 28mm can be) and for social reasons (getting to play more games with more different people). I'd still say I'm more passionate about Epic and so on, but I think there's a strong argument to be made that being passionate about a game only 1 or 2 (or 0! ) other people play is not as good for our small community as being a bit less excited about a game more people play, but playing it anyway. (The super-hard-line formulation of this might be: If you're so dedicated to your game of choice that you don't want to give any one of these three very good games a shot, maybe you need to rethink that!) My overall point being that my suggestion to limit games played isn't coming from a place of "prohibiting certain kinds of fun" as much as "suggesting people focus on certain kinds of fun for the good of the community." Which might be the same thing from a different point of view, I'll allow.

To get off the soapbox, I personally think "bring 1 big game and up to 1 minor game each month" is very probably a workable thing to try, but then again I usually come by car. (So is "try to schedule a game against a Japanese dude once in a while," for that matter.) And yes, I'll allow that "how big is big enough to be big" is a very thorny thing to figure out.

Thinking of it, I think that one very simple thing that would probably help a lot of these issues (including connecting with the Japanese guys) is to have a short (5 or 10 minute) honest-to-goodness meeting at games day each month, where everyone present introduces themselves and talks briefly about what they're playing today, what they're working on, and what (if anything) they're thinking of getting into. We could even go so far as to post a summary of said meeting here and/or on FB each month, so everyone can know what's bubbling under the surface, and we English-speaking players can get a better idea of what's going on with the Japanese players, and vice versa.

[Primarch]

Ok, so my poorly thought out phrasing aside, I guess we are on a similar wavelength. It's not like there is any real way of enforcing any rules anyway, so the point is fairly moot.

A meeting at some stage, even if it's not every month, sounds like a good idea. Discussing what we are working on, what we want to try and what we want to play again and so forth might take up a little time, but is probably beneficial to getting people involved and motivated. Knowing that other people are working on something helps to motivate me to get stuff ready for a game (often finding that the other people haven't in fact done anything, but that's another matter. ). Honestly, enthusiasm for a project waxes and wanes fairly quickly, so a shot in the arm every now and again really is important.

I like to think that I am fairly open to trying out new games and new systems, perhaps too much so, given this discussion about having too many games. Of the games I have played, I wouldn't say that there was anything that I absolutely hated and wouldn't play again. There are rules or facets of some games that I don't enjoy, and there are some things where I just don't have much interest. I'd happily play 6mm Naps, but I'm not of a mindset to paint an army of them anytime soon. By comparison, I like the figures and the aesthetic for Warmahordes, but I find the game fundamentally boring. I love the fluff for 40K, but the general trend of the game to bring bigger and bigger things that kill and die quicker with bucket loads of dice has left me with no interest in the game. I'd love for the new edition to take off and be as popular as it used to be back in 5th ed., but for me the new Primaris Marines represent everything that I don't enjoy about the game. If you like embiggened Marines, more power to you.
So for me, as I imagine for you, the games we choose are the one we feel a close affinity to, the ones which maximize our enjoyment on as many levels as possible. I think that most of us would rather play something we weren't fond of rather than not playing at all, but not on a regular basis.

So whatever we try to do, I do feel that a fair amount of flexibility and freedom of choice should be included.

Currently there are a lot of games on offer from dozens of different makers and there are new ones coming out all the time. Some retread well-worn ground, others are innovative and unique some fall halfway between. Perhaps one of the reasons we have splintered as a group is because GW isn't the only game in town anymore. We have found games more tailored to our individual tastes and replaced the games that only generally fit our ideals. As more games come out, with more choices for minis, scales and materials, I think we will see this issue get bigger and bigger.
So, should we just call a moratorium on new games? We already have a situation where we have more choices available than opportunities to play. But, speaking for myself, I think that this kind of limit would bring about stagnation and boredom as we became locked in to particular games. There is already something of a mindset of 'Everyone has X, so everyone should play X' at bigger events and indeed in this thread. It is a good short term solution, but if you revisit the question next year, everyone still has X and no-one has Y, so X will always be played.

So being flexible and open about the possibility of new games is also something to consider.

Right, well, I'm off to have a ponder again (and lunch). I'm sure I'll be back with more rambling nonsense this afternoon.